Sufficiency of the evidence; People v. Meshell; Attempted second-degree home invasion; MCL 750.110a(3); People v. Nutt; “Attempt”; People v. Jones; People v. Adams; Intent; People v. Lugo; Circumstantial evidence; People v. Carines; The fact-finder’s role of determining the weight of evidence or the credibility of witnesses; People v. Eisen; Findings of fact; MCR 2.517(A)(1); Principle that a trial court’s failure to find every element does not necessarily render its findings insufficient; People v. Jackson; People v. Lanzo Constr. Co.; Principle that a judge in a bench trial must arrive at a decision based upon the evidence in the case; People v. Simon; Right to confront witnesses; People v. Ramsey

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the respondent-juvenile’s adjudication of responsibility for attempted second-degree home invasion. The trial court ordered that he be placed in the home of his parents and imposed 182 days of probation. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that there was insufficient evidence to establish the elements of attempted second-degree home invasion. “Because of the circumstances and facts surrounding the incident, a rational trier of fact could infer respondent had the intent to enter [the victim’s] dwelling, by breaking or without permission, and to commit a larceny or felony inside the dwelling.” Further, he “acted in furtherance of his intent to enter [the] dwelling, by breaking or without permission, and to commit a larceny or felony” inside the dwelling. “When viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, sufficient evidence was presented to establish that [he] attempted to enter [the] dwelling, by breaking or without permission, with the intent to commit a felony or a larceny in the dwelling.” The court also rejected his argument that the trial court did not make adequate findings of fact and relied on improper evidence when it reached its verdict. Because the trial court was aware of the issues in the case and correctly applied the law to the facts,” its findings were sufficient. Finally, it rejected his argument that the trial court relied on improper evidence when reaching its verdict. Because a fact-finder "should use his or her own common sense and everyday experience in evaluating evidence, the trial court did not rely on improper evidence.” Affirmed.